Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction For close to a century, public policy research institutes, or think tanks as they are often described in the mainstream media and in the academic literature, have made their presence felt on the Canadian political landscape. Although the largest concentrations of think tanks can be found in the United States, most advanced and developing countries count them among the many types of non-governmental organizations that engage in research and analysis. Along with interest groups, trade associations, human rights organizations, advocacy networks and a handful of other bodies, think tanks rely on their expertise and knowledge to influence public opinion and public policy. What has distinguished think tanks in the past, particularly those that came of age during the early decades of the twentieth century, from the other organizations mentioned above, is their reputation for being objective, scientific and non-partisan. However, in recent decades, as think tanks have invested considerable resources in shaping public opinion and public policy, their image as scholarly and policy-neutral organizations has been called into question. Indeed, it has become increasingly difficult to differentiate between think tanks, lobbyists, government relations firms, consultants and interest groups. As think tanks have come to occupy a stronger presence in the policymaking community, academic interest in their role and function has intensified. While some scholars (Rich, 2004; Abelson, 1996; 2006; 2009; Stone, 1996; McGann, 1995; 2016; Ricci, 1993; Smith, 1991; Weaver, 1989) have been preoccupied with how and to what extent think tanks have been able to access the highest levels of the American government, others have paid close attention to the various ways in which think tanks have tried to make an impact in Westminister parliamentary democracies such as Canada (Abelson, 2016) and Great Britain (Savoie, 2003; Baier & Bakvis, 2001; Lindquist, 1998; Dobuzinskis, 1996). This research has led to several comparative studies in the field (Stone and Denham, 2004; 1998; McGann & Weaver, 2000; Pautz, 2012; Abelson et al., 2017), which have focused on, among other things, the extent to which different political systems facilitate or frustrate the efforts of think tanks to participate in the policymaking process. For example, some recent studies (Abelson, 2009; 2016; Abelson & Carberry, 1998) have tried to explain why American think tanks enjoy far more visibility and prominence than their Canadian counterparts.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,016 | 0,038 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,005 | 0,014 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,040 | 0,019 |
| Communication savante | 0,023 | 0,007 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,008 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,006 | 0,008 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,020 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».